Search

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32651 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not an eye irritant. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive consisting of L. buchneri DSM 32651 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 28%–45%.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (ECONASE® XT) as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancer) for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. ECONASE® XT is available in two liquid and three solid forms and is produced with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not raise any safety concerns, and viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The Panel also concluded that ECONASE® XT is safe for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of the additive raises no safety concerns for the consumers of products derived from animals fed with the additive or for the environment. The liquid and solid forms of ECONASE® XT are non‐irritant to the skin, but only the liquid forms were confirmed as non‐irritant to the eyes and not dermal sensitisers. The Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential to the eyes and the dermal sensitisation potential for the solid forms. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in pigs for fattening at 20,000 BXU/kg complete feed, in all laying poultry species at 12,000 BXU/kg complete feed and in minor poultry species other than laying birds at 8000 BXU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use with all fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. coryniformis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 has the potential to improve the production of silages prepared from all fresh plant materials at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 16680 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as an eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. lactis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of a preparation of dried cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐4407 (Actisaf® Sc 47) as a zootechnical additive for rabbits for fattening and non‐food producing rabbits. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, the additive is not a skin or eye irritant. However, it should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1079 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and all other Canidae. The additive is intended for use in feed for dogs and all other Canidae at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU per kg of complete feed. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the active agent has been clearly established and no concerns are expected from other components of the product, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Since the additive is intended to be used only in feed for dogs and other non‐food‐producing animals, an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment is not needed. The non‐coated form of the additive was shown to be non‐irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusion can be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the coated form of the additive due to the lack of data. The additive in both forms, should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1079 at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30%–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of liquid l‐lysine base produced with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The l‐lysine base liquid produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐67535 and NRRL B‐67439 is currently authorised as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The present application is aimed at modifying the current authorisation to include C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 as a production strain. The new production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach when used for production purposes. It was unambiguously identified as C. glutamicum and was shown not to harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. All the introduced sequences or mutations were considered to be safe, and no viable cells or DNA of the NRRL B‐68248 strain was detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l‐Lysine base produced using C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 does not represent a risk for the target species, the consumer or the environment. The additive was considered to be neither irritant to skin or the eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser. l‐Lysine base produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 is considered to be an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the alpha‐amylase (Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L) produced with a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 34315) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species. The additive is available in two forms, a coated thermotolerant granulate formulation and a liquid formulation. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulations. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the final product did not trigger safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel concluded that Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L is safe for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 80 KNU/kg complete feed. The use of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumers and the environment. The additive in any form was shown to be non‐irritant to the skin and the solid form was shown to be non‐irritant to the eyes. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the liquid form to be irritant to the eyes or on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers due to lack of data. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive in either form was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser and any exposure by inhalation is considered a risk. In the absence of data, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the active agent L. paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, L. paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Limosilactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 30169 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA‐6138 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 18112 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18112 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA‐2494 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) ATCC 55943 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55943 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6‐phytase (Quantum® Blue) as a zootechnical feed additive for fin fish. The additive is authorised for use in poultry and pigs. The additive is available in solid and liquid forms, and the 6‐phytase contained in the product is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns; viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additive tested is safe for fin fish at the highest recommended level of 2500 phytase activity unit (FTU)/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that Quantum® Blue is not an irritant to skin and eyes nor a skin sensitiser. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, 6‐phytase (Quantum® Blue) is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The use of Quantum® Blue as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for salmonids and ornamental fish at 500 FTU/kg complete feed and other fin fish at 2500 FTU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DSM 34246 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and cats. The additive, with the trade name Canobios‐BL, is intended for use in feed for cats and dogs at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 5 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the active agent has been clearly established and the additive is composed by dried cells of the active agent and an emulsifier, that are not expected to introduce any risk, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Canobios‐BL is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Canobios‐BL is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for dogs and cats at the use level 5 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 14021, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 21982 as a technological feed additive, silage additive, for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Cylactin® as a zootechnical feed additive for cats and dogs. The active agent of the additive is Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 10415 and the micro‐encapsulated formulation, Cylactin® LBC ME5 PET, was assessed. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for cats and dogs. Regarding user safety, the additive was not shown to be skin and eye irritant, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive based on fumonisin esterase (Free Yeast® F), produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The additive is categorised as a technological feed additive, for the reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins and intended for use in all pigs species (piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor growing and reproductive porcine species). It was shown that the production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned and suckling piglets and pigs for fattening, and all minor growing porcine species up to 60 U/kg complete feed. No conclusions can be drawn on the safety of the additive in sows. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The additive is dust‐free, and therefore, respiratory sensitisation/irritation is unlikely. The additive is non‐irritant to the eyes and the skin. No conclusion could be made on skin sensitisation. The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as technological feed additive for the reduction of feed contamination by fumonisins, when used at the minimum recommended concentration of 60 U/kg. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all growing and reproductive pigs and other minor porcine species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Enterococcus lactis DSM 22502 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that E. lactis remains safe for all animal species, consumers and environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, the Panel concluded that the additive is not irritating to the skin or eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23689 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) in regard to the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets, weaned minor porcine species, sows and minor reproductive Suidae species, and its extension of use for all Suidae. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that there is no new evidence that would lead it to reconsider the previous conclusions; the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species/categories for which a request for an extension of use is made. The Panel concluded that B. velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser due to its proteinaceous nature. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in all growing Suidae (suckling, weaned and fattening Suidae) at the minimum inclusion level of 1 × 107 CFU/kg of complete feed and in sows and minor reproductive Suidae species at 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 22501 as a technological feed additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin and eye, but owing to its proteinaceous nature it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 23231 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that evidence has been provided that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of authorisation. The Panel also concluded that L. brevis DSM 23231 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Based on the studies submitted regarding user safety, the preparation of the additive tested was shown not to be a skin or eye irritant. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets, calves for fattening and calves for rearing. The product under assessment is based on a strain originally identified as Enterococcus faecium. During the current assessment, the active agent has been reclassified as Enterococcus lactis. The additive currently authorised is marketed in two formulations: Lactiferm Basic 50 (a solid formulation to be used in feed), and Lactiferm WS200 (a solid ‘water‐soluble’ formulation to be used in water for drinking). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concludes that the use of Lactiferm® under the authorised conditions of use remains safe for the target species (calves up to 6 months and weaned piglets up to 35 kg), consumers and the environment. The Lactiferm WS200 formulation of the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, both formulations of the additive are considered respiratory sensitisers. It is not possible to conclude on the irritating potential for skin and eyes of the Lactiferm Basic 50 formulation or on the potential of both forms of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) for all insects. The active agent used in the additive is already authorised for use in all animal species as a technological additive, and as a zootechnical additive in all Suidae species for fattening and for breeding, other than sows, all avian species, all fish species and all crustaceans. The active agent has been identified as a strain of P. acidilactici and consequently meets the qualifications required by the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The use of the additive is considered safe for all insect species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered non‐irritant to skin and eyes but a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn regarding its skin sensitisation potential. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as a physiological condition stabiliser for honeybees nor for all insect species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) NCIMB 30139 as a technological additive for use in easy to ensile fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is not skin irritant, but no conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation or eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Weizmannia faecalis (formerly identified as Bacillus coagulans) DSM 32016 (TechnoSpore50®) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry reared for breeding/laying/fattening, ornamental birds and suckling and weaned Suidae piglets. The additive is authorised for use in feed for poultry for fattening, ornamental birds and suckling and weaned Suidae piglets. This application sought the extension of use in feed for poultry reared for breeding/laying and the new authorisation in water for drinking for suckling and weaned Suidae piglets, poultry for fattening, reared for breeding/laying and ornamental birds. Moreover, the applicant requested the authorisation of simultaneous use in feed for poultry reared for breeding and laying with coccidiostats. The identity and the lack of toxigenic activity of the active agent was confirmed, and it did not show resistance to relevant antibiotics; therefore, the strain was presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since other components did not introduce concerns, TechnoSpore50® was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant but is a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. TechnoSpore50® was considered to be efficacious in feed for poultry reared for laying/breeding at 1 × 109 CFU/kg and in water for drinking for poultry reared for fattening, poultry reared for laying/breeding, ornamental birds and for suckling and weaned Suidae piglets at 5 × 108 CFU/L. TechnoSpore50® is compatible with halofuginone, diclazuril, monensin sodium, robenidine hydrochloride, salinomycin sodium and monensin sodium + nicarbazin, but not with narasin or narasin + nicarbazin. No conclusions could be drawn on the compatibility of TechnoSpore50® with decoquinate, lasalocid A sodium, semduramicin sodium, nicarbazin or amprolium hydrochloride.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the additive Provita LE for calves for rearing, consisting of Enterococcus lactis DSM 7134 (formerly identified as Enterococcus faecium) and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus DSM 7133 (formerly identified as Lactobacillus rhamnosus) as a zootechnical feed additive. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for calves for rearing, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive under assessment. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract The additive RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae; the additive is currently authorised for poultry for fattening, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, lactating sows and laying hens. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 26372 with A. oryzae DSM 33700, and to extend the use of the additive to all poultry species and all Suidae. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final formulations of the additive. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) was considered safe for all poultry species and all Suidae at the recommended inclusion levels. The use of RONOZYME® WX CT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700 raised no concerns for consumers. RONOZYME® WX L is not an eye irritant; however, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential of RONOZYME® WX CT to be an eye irritant. Both formulations are not irritant to the skin, but due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the potential of both formulations of the additive to be skin sensitisers. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33700 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species and all Suidae at 100 and 200 FXU/kg complete feed, respectively.

Abstract The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre‐evaluation of the safety of microorganisms intended for use in the food or feed chains. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’ which should be assessed at strain and/or product level by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The generic qualification ‘the strains should not harbour any acquired antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes to clinically relevant antimicrobials’ applies to all QPS bacterial TUs. The different EFSA risk assessment areas use the same approach to assess the qualification related to AMR genes. In this statement, the terms ‘intrinsic’ and ‘acquired’ AMR genes were defined for the purpose of EFSA's risk assessments, and they apply to bacteria used in the food and feed chains. A bioinformatic approach is proposed for demonstrating the ‘intrinsic’/’acquired’ nature of an AMR gene. All AMR genes that confer resistance towards ‘critically important’, ‘highly important’ and ‘important’ antimicrobials, as defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO), found as hits, need to be considered as hazards (for humans, animals and environment) and need further assessment. Genes identified as responsible for ‘intrinsic’ resistance could be considered as being of no concern in the frame of the EFSA risk assessment. ‘Acquired’ AMR genes resulting in a resistant phenotype should be considered as a concern. If the presence of the ‘acquired’ AMR gene is not leading to phenotypic resistance, further case‐by‐case assessment is necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 19455 as a technological feed additive for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material for all animal species. The Panel concluded that L. buchneri DSM 19455 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, L. buchneri DSM 19455 was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive with inulin as a carrier tested is not irritant to skin and eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of Cylactin® as zootechnical additive. The active agent of the additive is Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 10415, and three additive formulations currently authorised: Cylactin® LBC G35, Cylactin® LBC ME10 and Cylactin® LBC ME20 plus. The additive is currently authorised in the EU for use in poultry (chickens and minor poultry species for fattening, chickens and minor species reared for laying), calves and kids for rearing and for fattening, sows, suckling and weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. The applicant is now seeking the renewal of its authorisation and the extension of use for chickens and minor poultry species reared for breeding, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, ornamental birds, lambs for rearing and for fattening, minor or other ruminants' species for rearing and fattening, minor suckling and weaned Suidae species, pigs and minor Suidae species for fattening, rearing or reproduction. In addition, the applicant is seeking authorisation for use in water for drinking for all above‐mentioned target species and categories. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment under the authorised/new proposed conditions of use. The Cylactin® LBC ME10 and LBC ME20 plus are not skin and eye irritants, but no conclusion could be drawn on the potential of Cylactin® LBC G35 to be skin and eye irritant. Moreover, no conclusions could be drawn on the additive skin sensitisation potential. The additive is considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The efficacy for the new target species/categories as well its use in water was extrapolated from the previous efficacy studies.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the skin and eye irritation potential of the additive. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® when used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) for dogs. The product under assessment is based on viable cells of Lacticaseibacillus casei IDAC 210415‐01, Limosilactobacillus fermentum IDAC 210415‐02, Levilactobacillus brevis IDAC 051120‐02 and Enterococcus faecium IDAC 181218‐03. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the identification of the strains and, therefore, the safety of the product cannot be based on the presumption of safety of the active agents. The Panel notes that the use of E. faecium IDAC 181218‐03 represents a safety concern because it harbours an acquired antimicrobial resistance gene. Moreover, the hazard related to the presence of additional antimicrobial resistance genes in the active agents cannot be excluded. No tolerance trials on the target animals have been provided. Therefore, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for dogs. Regarding the user safety, the Panel cannot conclude on the irritant potential of the additive for skin or eyes due to the absence of data. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on its potential to be a skin sensitiser. The use of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® in animal nutrition represents a safety concern for the environment due to the potential carryover of at least an antimicrobial resistance gene. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® for the target species.

Abstract Bonvital® is the trade name for a feed additive currently authorised for use in piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, chickens for fattening, laying hens, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species (other than those used for laying). This opinion concerns the renewal of the authorisation of Bonvital® as a zootechnical additive for chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species other than those used for laying. The active agent of Bonvital® was originally identified as Enterococcus faecium. During the current assessment, the strain was reassigned to Enterococcus lactis. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Bonvital® was found to be non‐irritant to skin and eyes, but a potential respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need to assess the efficacy of Bonvital® in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Agal‐Pro BL/BL‐L®. The additive is a preparation of alpha‐galactosidase produced by a genetically modified strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo‐1,4‐beta‐glucanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). It is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) in chickens for fattening in its solid and liquid forms (Agal‐Pro BL® and Agal‐Pro BL‐L®), and in minor poultry species for fattening and chickens reared for laying only in its solid form (Agal‐Pro BL®). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is considered an irritant to the skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324, Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 (GalliPro® Fit) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying or for breeding. The additive is already authorised for use in feed and water for drinking for the above‐mentioned species. With this application, the company requested the modification of the current authorisations as regards the simultaneous use of the additive with the coccidiostats monensin, salinomycin, narasin, nicarbazin+narasin and lasalocid. The proposed modification in the conditions of the authorisation would not modify the conclusions previously drawn regarding the safety of GalliPro® Fit. The additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not a dermal/eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential. The Panel concluded that GalliPro® Fit is compatible with the coccidiostats monensin, salinomycin, narasin, nicarbazin+narasin and lasalocid.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐β‐1,4‐xylanase (VTR‐xylanase) as a zootechnical feed additive for all avian species, piglets (suckling and weaned) and minor growing porcine species. VTR‐xylanase is available in a powder and a liquid form and is produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.371). The genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR xylanase (powder/liquid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.371 is safe for all avian species, piglets and minor growing porcine species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid and powder formulations of VTR‐xylanase are non‐irritant to eyes but should be considered skin sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the final formulations of the additive to be irritant to skin. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all laying birds and piglets (suckling and weaned) from all Suidae at 2,000 U/kg and in all other avian species/categories at 1,000 U/kg feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30083 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a protease (ProAct 360) produced by a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 33099) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulation. The final product did not trigger a safety concern with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that ProAct 360 is considered safe for all growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed. The use ProAct 360 as a feed additive did not give rise to concerns for the consumers or the environment. The additive is not an eye or a dermal irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be reached on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed for all poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of three additives consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573, respectively, as technological additives to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additives currently on the market comply with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additives remain safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additives are not irritant to skin or eyes, but owing to their proteinaceous nature they should be considered respiratory sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additives. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additives in the context of the renewal of the authorisations.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives consisting of Enterococcus faecium strains ATCC 53519 and ATCC 55593, respectively. The additives are intended for use with all types of fresh materials and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 107 colony forming units (CFU) of E. faecium ATCC 53519/kg forage or 5 × 106 CFU of E. faecium ATCC 55593/kg forage. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy since the dry matter content of the ensiled materials at the end of the experiments was not corrected for volatiles, which led to an unreliable estimation of the dry matter loss, and the lack of positive effects on any of the other parameters. The supplementary information submitted by the applicant included updated data on the pH values and the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles. However, the estimation of the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles was wrongly calculated and thus, was not considered for the assessment of the efficacy of the additive. Considering the lack of effect on any other fermentation parameter, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive to improve the production of silage under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Ronozyme® Multigrain G/L is the trade name of the feed additive under assessment containing endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase, endo‐1,4‐beta‐glucanase and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (ATCC 74444). It is authorised for use as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancer) in poultry for fattening, poultry for laying and weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for the species/categories for which there is an authorisation. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the animal species/categories, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the safety for the user, the additive should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. In absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to cause skin and eye irritation or dermal sensitisation. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for poultry for fattening, poultry for laying and weaned piglets.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of the additive consisting of Companilactobacillus farciminis (formerly Lactobacillus farciminis) CNCM I‐3740 (tradename: Biacton®) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens. The additive is a preparation containing viable cells of C. farciminis CNCM I‐3740 at the minimum concentration of 1 × 109 CFU/g additive. It is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive in feed for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens at the recommended application level of 5 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed. In the context of previous opinions, no conclusions could be drawn on the efficacy of the additive in any of the target species based on the data provided. As regards chickens for fattening, in the former opinions the supplementation of the additive at the recommended level showed a significantly greater weight or weight gain compared to birds in the control group only in two studies. New statistical analysis data of one efficacy trial were submitted. The results showed that Biacton® supplemented at 8.5 × 108 CFU/kg feed or at higher levels significantly improved the feed to gain ratio of chickens for fattening compared to control birds or to birds receiving the additive at the recommended level. Therefore, the Panel concluded that Biacton® has the potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening at the concentration of 8.5 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extrapolated to turkeys for fattening.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 23375, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive L. plantarum DSM 23375 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested ■■■■■. It should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony‐forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage from easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material with a dry matter content ranging from 28% to 45%.